A. Defendant B is jointly with Defendant B, and the above building is jointly with Defendant B.

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association whose business area covers Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G G party, including the site of each building listed in the attached list pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. The head of Seongbuk-gu Office shall approve the management and disposal plan of the plaintiff on February 24, 2017 and the same year.

3.2. Public notice was given, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation on August 25, 2017, with the starting date of expropriation as of October 20, 2017.

C. On October 18, 2017, after the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff deposited the compensation for losses and additional charges for delay due to the expropriation ruling with Defendant B, D, and F as a depositor.

Of the status 1 B 1 owners and 2 C 1 owners, 3 D2 owners, 4 E 2 owners, 12m2, 12m2, 52m2, 12m2, 12m2, of the 3m2, 15m2, 3m2, 3m2, 3m2, 3m2, 5m2,2, 3m2,000 m2.

D. The Defendants, as the owners or lessees of each building listed in the separate sheet in the project zone, occupy each building listed in the separate sheet as shown below.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant C: The fact that there is no dispute over Defendant B, D, E, and F, each entry in the evidence of Nos. 1 through 9 (including additional numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts based on the determination of the cause of the claim, since the Plaintiff received authorization of a management and disposal plan under the provisions of the Urban Improvement Act and the use and profit-making of right holders, such as the former building owner, lessee, etc. is suspended pursuant to Article 49(3) and (6) of the Urban Improvement Act, the Defendants, who directly or indirectly occupy the buildings within the project area, are obligated to deliver the part of possession by each Defendant to the Plaintiff, as described in paragraph (1) of the disposition of the said authorization, (the Defendant who directly occupies the whole part of the building, has a duty to jointly hand over it with the Defendant who

Supreme Court Decision 91Da22209 delivered on December 22, 1992